Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Sabotage of our mail: How many times will the Financial Ombudsman have to mail us a hardcopy of its response to Declan's complaint against the Royal Bank of Scotland before we receive it?

With reference to RBS's response below, my business email address has always been dheavey@gmail.com and therefore did not require updating or necessitate the change of details alert I received on 9 May 2016. Further, the alert failed to identify who made the alleged change to my email address, thereby raising the serious concern that I could have been dealing with a hacker or other threat.

- Excerpt from Declan's formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman concerning the Royal Bank of Scotland (incorporating NatWest Bank)

According to the Office of the Financial Ombudsman, they have posted their response to Declan's complaint against the Royal Bank of Scotland three times: on 31 May, 8 June and 10 June. On 8 June we received a copy of the letter by email, telling us what is happening next with the complaint. Will they have to post it a fourth time later this week?

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The removal of our flat door in 2012 pales into insignificance when compared to the concern the alert above caused.
Click to enlarge
Paragraph 43 of Declan's updated complaint to the United Nations re the sabotage of our mail

43. The Applicant has also amassed irrefutable evidence relating to the sabotage of his and his wife's mail, including the non-delivery of registered items. For example, in the case of Heavey v Haringey Council (see para 23(i) above), the Applicant was denied an oral hearing which he may have been granted had he received an order from the High Court when it was sent to him. Subsequently, the Applicant's application for an order extending time for renewing his application for permission to apply for judicial review to an oral hearing and for the file of his claim to be re-opened was refused by Mitting J. The Applicant has complained on four occasions to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith about the Department for Work and Pensions' manipulation of his personal data. For example, it took over a year for the Applicant to receive of a P60 from the Department for the tax year 2013-2014, the original document having been mailed after his third complaint to an address that was neither authorised nor consented to by him (see annex 24, pp 73-75).

Related blog post 25 March 2016: Threat to life: Updated complaint to the United Nations